Sheshonq

1. Who is Haim Maccoby and why should we trust him?

2. How would an early authorship prove that the churches were historical? Early authorship does not prevent deception or exaggeration.

You have a lot to learn about how to evaluate a source.

Edited to add AGAIN: your source actually says 50-60 AD, arnoldo -- NOT 40-50 AD, as was your claim:

Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities.


Edited to add: Wikipedia seems to think that Romans was written no earlier than 58 AD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans

1st Corinthians 53 to 57 AD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Corinthians

Philippians - AD 61:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/phip00d.htm

I think you need to do some more research, arnoldo. Actually do "any at all".

Amaleq13

Are you truly unaware that this offers zero support for your assertion about archaeological evidence "absolutely" proving the existence of the historicity of Pauline churches or is that an intentional effort to distract from your inability to offer any such support?

schilling.klaus

a Talmudic scholar who claimed that Paul was not a native Jew,
just an opportunit proselyte who soon got disappointed and
started his own cult


both datings are fraudulently hilarious.
140-160 is more like it.

Klaus Schilling

arnoldo

Fine 140-160 was the date that the letters of Paul were written. Do you also believe that Ephesus never existed also?
http://www.parsagard.com/paul@ephesus.htm

arnoldo

So your argument basically is that the following.

A = Jesus of the Gospels
B= Jesus of Paul

Sorry, A = B. Please cite any "proof" there is a difference. Obviously you have none whatsoever and it's only your opinion.

Sheshonq

Another red herring. The existence of the town of Ephesus is not in question.

The existence of an early Christian church at Ephesus is the actual question on the table.

But you knew that already - which is why you are trying to avoid the issue.

Sheshonq

You're the one claiming they are the same. Burden of proof is on your back.

At least he doesn't google "Tyre" and throw whatever he finds at the computer screen without reading it.

ROFLMAO :rolling:

arnoldo

Sorry for the misunderstanding, for the sake of clarification, there is archaeological proof of the cities in which Paul wrote/visited in his epistles,ie, Ephesus, Rome, Corinth, Colossae, Athens,etc.

Sheshonq

Another red herring? The existence of the cities was never in doubt.

arnoldo

This source places Paul in Ephesus.

http://www.turkishodyssey.com/places/aegean/aegean3.htm